Ali Ansari said:
IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SCIENTIFICALLY VALID?
The theory of evolution maintains that life on Earth came about as the result of chance and emerged by itself from natural conditions. This theory is not a scientific law or a proven fact. Underneath its scientific façade it is a materialist worldview that Darwinists are trying to impose on society. The bases of this theory, which has been disproved by science in every field, are suggestions and propaganda methods consisting of deceptions, falsehood, contradiction, cheating, and sleight of hand.
"Evolution" means "change." The various theories of evolution are not theories of genesis, or beginnings, but theories on the mechanisms by which living things change over time.
Do you believe that chihuahua dogs, human insulin producing bacteria and bubble-eyed, double-tailed goldfish that can barely swim have always existed?
If you believe that these oddities were bred by men then
you believe in evolution! Specifically you believe in evolution by the mechanism of selective breeding.
When you get right down to it, Ali, if you believe there
was a beginning to life or that an animal's offspring
can be different from it then there are only two possibilities: either these changes and beginnings have a
mechanism or they occurr by
magic. When you argue against mechanisms you are, perforce, maintaining that magic is a more plausible and reasonable explanation. Is this really your position?
You say that evolution is not a proven fact. You say it is a "worldview" and that Darwinists (whatever they are) are trying to impose it on society. What does this mean?
Is the round-earth theory, the heliocentric theory or the germ theory of disease a "worldview? Are these theories -- and they are just as much theories as evolution is -- being "imposed" on us for some nefarious purpose?
Where did you come up with this idea that evolution has been "disproven in every field;" that it is some sort of massive conspiracy of deception?
Forgive me, but these are reminiscent of the rantings of a paranoid schizophrenic. Evolution is one of the best supported theories in science. It is about as universally accepted as any scientific fact can be.
The theory of evolution was put forward as an imaginary hypothesis in the context of the primitive scientific understanding of the nineteenth century, and to this day it has not been backed up by any scientific discovery or experiment. On the contrary, all the methods employed to confirm the theory have merely proven its invalidity.
Ali, you clearly have no understanding of what evolution is, its mechanisms, or the evidence behind it.
However, even today many people think that the theory is a proven fact, like the force of gravity or the law of buoyancy. Because, as stated at the beginning, the true nature of the theory of evolution is very different from what is usually supposed. For this reason, some people do not know what rotten foundations this theory has, how it is disproved by science at every turn, and how evolutionists are trying to keep it alive in its death throes. Evolutionists have no other support than unconfirmed hypotheses, biased and unrealistic observations, and imaginary drawings, methods of psychological suggestion, countless falsehoods, and sleight-of-hand techniques.
Gravity and buoyancy are no more -- or less -- "proven facts" than evolution is. They are all scientific theories
and scientific facts. Your usage of "proven" casts doubt on your understanding of science. Ultimately science does not deal in proof, it deals in observation, testing, and interpreting evidence.
Your assertion that evolution theory is a threadbare, motheaten, decaying fabric of lies and deception frankly leaves me flabbergasted! Where do you come up with this stuff? and why?
How can one respond to such a monumentally absurd, patently
wrong assertion about the most well-supported, productive and universally accepted principles of biology?
Today, such branches of science as paleontology, genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology have proven that it is quite impossible for life to come about as a result of chance and to emerge by itself from natural conditions. The living cell, it is commonly agreed by the world of science, is the most complex structure that mankind has so far encountered. Modern science has revealed that just one living cell has a much more complex structure and mutually interconnected complicated systems than a large city. Such a complex structure can only function if all its separate parts emerge at the same time and in full working order. Otherwise, it will serve no purpose, and will fall apart over time and disappear. We cannot expect that its parts developed by chance over millions of years as claimed by the theory of evolution. For that reason, the complex design in just one cell clearly shows that God created life.
Another astounding
non sequitur.
How does "God did it" emerge from the rather tired old irreducible complexity argument? And "God did it" does not even begin to speak to the
mechanism by which this wonder was wrought, which, after all, is the only thing science can deal with.
However, those who defend materialist philosophy do not want to accept the fact of creation for various ideological reasons. That is because the existence and spread of societies living in the light of that beautiful morality that true religion offers to man by means of God's commands and prohibitions is not in these materialists' interests. Masses devoid of any spiritual and moral values suit these people far better, since they can manipulate them for their own worldly interests. For this reason, they try to impose the theory of evolution, which encourages the lie that mankind was not created but rather emerged by chance and evolved from animals, and to keep it alive at whatever costs. Despite all the clear scientific proof that destroys the theory of evolution and confirms the fact of creation, they abandon all reason and logic and defend this nonsense at every available opportunity.
When did biologists ever dispute the fact of creation? It is a fact; a
fait accompli. Scientists are not out to dispute creation but to discover its mechanisms.
You impute moral bankruptcy to scientists, skeptics and intellectuals. You seem to equate this with not accepting God's "commands and prohibitions, " though why "true religion" should be incompatible with intellectual inquiry or acceptance of the preponderance of evidence in scientific theories escapes me.
I could make a case that the spiritual and moral caliber of many scientists and freethinkers were superior to that of those who uncritically follow a rigid set of commands and prohibitions; that freethinkers were generally at a higher Kohlberg level than pharisaic religious practitioners; that the principled were more resistant to manipulation for the worldly interests of others than the doctrinaire have been in recent years.
You seem to think that strongly religious societies are happier, more prosperous, more law-abiding, more "moral" than than secular societies. I recently read an interesting article (which I think I discovered through a link somewhere in RF) which made an interesting case for an inverse relationship between religiosity and social harmony.
I'll see if I can dig it up.
Evolutionists have tried very hard to find evidence for their theory or so, but have actually proved by their own hand that no evolutionary process could have been possible. In conclusion, modern science reveals the following indisputable fact: Living things did not emerge as the result of blind chance, but God created them.
Balderdash. Science says no such thing. "God created them" is not a scientific assertion, it is a religious assertion, of magic.
